Live data from Hacker News

Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

appfairness.org

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#771
post #764

Does Apple allow developers to just charge 30% more when users sign up through iOS, and just note in the app that access to the service though iOS costs more? Seems fair to me, and let’s consumers know where the money is going (to Apple, presumably to pay for ecosystem things like app privacy and security reviews, billing, etc). If users don’t like it, then the market will do it’s thing right? It’s unclear to me what…

> Does Apple allow developers to just charge 30% more when users sign up through iOS, and just note in the app that access to the service though iOS costs more?

You are allowed to do the former but not the latter.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely resent the implication that protecting the bottom n% of gullible users is mutually exclusive with giving power users the access they desire. they seem to do a decent job of it on their OSX machines, so why not iOS?

You're right! I disagree that the perfectly balanced system is OSX but overall I agree iPhones should have better "hack-ability". As I've posted elsewhere: I agree, Apple should make it easier to boot non-iOS iPhones. Even provide some tools to write custom OSes for the iPhone hardware. However, Apple should only provide that service to the registered adult owner of the device, in person at an Apple store after deliv…

> I agree, Apple should make it easier to boot non-iOS iPhones. Even provide some tools to write custom OSes for the iPhone hardware. However, Apple should only provide that service to the registered adult owner of the device, in person at an Apple store after delivering the caveats that the device will no longer be supported by Apple (regardless of resale) and any warranty is void.

this kinda misses the point. I don't want to write my own OS for the phone or run ubuntu or someone else's jailbroken iOS image. I just want to run normal iOS, get updates, and also have the ability to escalate privileges from time to time. why is there not an amount of money I can pay for this?

also, does apple distribute any third party drivers in iOS? if so, they might not be able to make non-iOS iphones possible, even if they wanted to. not as familiar with the apple world but IIRC, this has been a longstanding issue for true alternative OSes on android phones.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#773

I'm surprised at all of the negativity here. The changes proposed would be great for developers, even if (most) of the companies involved are shady, their reasons are selfish, and the obvious "astroturfiness" of the website is laughably dissonant and reeks like a dirty think tank that hasn't been cleaned in months. Apple has no qualms about absolutely screwing developers historically. I'm happy to see some pushback.

Support for Epic never took root on HN because techno-entrepreneurs see themselves not as mere fart app developers but as temporarily embarrassed billionaire monopolists.

>but as temporarily embarrassed billionaire monopolists.

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that. The counterarguments I've seen boil down to:

* apple's control on the app store is a net benefit for consumers

* we shouldn't be regulating it; consumers should be able to choose themselves

* fuck epic (because of their prior misdeeds)

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#774

Don't want to pay 30%? Don't develop for the platform then. I really think all these guys trying to change a company's own ecosystem's rules that the company itself created, are paid actors. I haven't seen a more flawed argument then knowing the exact rules of the ecosystem, which is owned by a company, and trying to change it. It's their company, their platform, their rules. It's been the same way since the beginnin…

Agreed and I have to wonder how any of these companies would respond if it was their users who agreed and knew the terms of their ecosystem and were now asking these three companies to change their rules.

Using Spotify as an example. I can't imagine Spotify responding favorably to a consortium of musicians who wanted to publish direct to the platform and receive a better royalty rate for instance. Spotify also doesn't seem to have any problem agreeing to the terms dictated by the Big three record labels that control and the majority of recorded music that they have no choice but to agree to.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#775
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I’m not sure what point you are arguing but it’s either that consumers are stupid and don’t really want a secure phone and walled garden and would want to take that choice away from customers by law. Or that Apple needs to charge less for access to the App Store while also spending more money (to stop the inhuman auto replies and actions) Both are terrible arguments

Apple has more than enough money to both protect users and actually help developers - it doesn't need to squeeze them. For example, why isn't it a one-time fee for the initial scan? Why must they take a share of every purchase. Without competition (like gasp competing app stores) Apple will continue to be negligent to devs and ban applications that compete with their services. For example, the Apple watch without cel…

> For example, the Apple watch without cellular cannot use Spotify in offline mode since that would compete with Apple music.

IIRC this is related to Spotify's music licensing agreements only permitting streaming and not copying of music and has nothing to do with Apple itself. I don't believe there are any technical restrictions preventing Spotify from implementing offline playback on the watch, they simply have chosen not to do so.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user. I have the choice of buying a completely controllable android device if I want to install mystery apps willy-nilly. I'm not interested in that, and there are millions like me. I want a locked-down device that keeps developers in check. This situation is much like the browser nightmares of the past, where Firefox users complained…

So, let’s apply this same logic to accessibility. Let’s say the government says “devices must have voice over functionality”. Ok, great. Apple puts that as an option, and we’re done. The same applies for if the government said “you have a right to install apps of your choice”. Apple adds a setting in the settings menu. You still get your locked down device by default, and much like blind people, people who care about…

Except that DRM is legal, and Apple devices are consoles / appliances: "What's a computer?"

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#777
post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to agree with apple, but they clearly think the halo effect of having just one reasonably fair app store on their platform increases their platform brand power and profits both. I think they are right. Can I ask a question. When your elderly parents or kids ask for a phone (assuming they are not developers), does it give you no comfort that if its an apple from end to end including app store things wil…

> You don't have to agree with apple, but they clearly think the halo effect of having just one reasonably fair app store on their platform increases their platform brand power and profits both. I think they are right. I agree, but "it makes us more money and gives us more power" has never been a defense against anti-trust law. Indeed if this was not true I imagine that anti-trust law would never have been necessary…

On the ad-blocking side, Android fans are blowing this out of proportion.

First of all, Safari’s content blockers, while far less capable than uBO, are pretty adequate for the time being. In my experience, iOS Safari + Wipr is fine.

Also, and this point is underrated, content blockers work in most app web views. For example Twitter’s or Gmail’s. Not all web views of course. Facebook for example chooses to use a web view, for opening links, that doesn’t have support for ad blockers.

Moreover, alternative browsers, such as Firefox, or Edge, or Brave, or Vivaldi, could still implement ad blocking. Not via an extension, but built in. And they in fact do. Microsoft’s Edge included.

Firefox on iOS is a little weak of course. They are only blocking domains meant for tracking, and they use the Disconnect list. Which is rather short. But they do take care of common ad exchanges, when in strict mode.

Also, Safari itself blocks third party tracking by default. It doesn’t block the requests themselves, but it does block the cookies they set. So it doesn’t block a request to Google Analytics, but it does block its cookie. New in iOS 14 is that this capability became available to all web views. So including Firefox on iOS. Users have to opt-out if they don’t want it.

Also iOS 14 has disabled the advertising ID, by default. Users have to opt-in explicitly, screwing the plans of Facebook, whose SDK is used by a lot of apps to gather metrics.

I would love to have full Firefox on iOS, but truth is, this is a false narrative. Given Firefox’s popularity on Android, I can tell you that iOS users are in fact more protected from trackers and ads, out of the box.

And it’s not just about Firefox’s popularity btw, I’m a huge Firefox supporter, but on Android it sucked in terms of performance, behavior, and compatibility with the web. From simple things, like pinching to zoom, with the fonts getting all blurry. As a technical user, you might live with that, but you wouldn’t subject your parents to it.

You make it seem like on Android you have choices. Well, not really. Most people use Chrome, or Samsung’s browser. On iOS, did you know that the only browser without ad blocking capabilities is Chrome?

Not to mention that you can also do DNS-level blocking, via NextDNS, or Pi-hole.

And there’s another aspect. My son has an Android and a majority of games are ads-driven. Imagine a drawing app that forces kids to click for more ads in order to receive clues/rewards, without which they can’t advance in the game. Quite brilliant if you ask me. It also forces them to disable any ad blocking that their parents installed ;-)

Well, on iOS people actually spend money on apps. And Apple has a new subscription even, called Apple Arcade, which gives people access to a collection of games without any ads, or in-app purchases. Just pay a subscription, and the games can’t play tricks on you. This is what curation does.

Unfortunately my son wanted an Android for now. So I’ll have to wait about 2 years, until his Android tables becomes unsupported and obsolete. And in the meantime my iPad Pro from 2015 will still be upgradable to the latest iOS.

If you’re saying that you can’t trust iOS’s ecosystem more than Android, for you children, then you’re seriously unfamiliar with it, sorry.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user. I have the choice of buying a completely controllable android device if I want to install mystery apps willy-nilly. I'm not interested in that, and there are millions like me. I want a locked-down device that keeps developers in check. This situation is much like the browser nightmares of the past, where Firefox users complained…

So, let’s apply this same logic to accessibility. Let’s say the government says “devices must have voice over functionality”. Ok, great. Apple puts that as an option, and we’re done. The same applies for if the government said “you have a right to install apps of your choice”. Apple adds a setting in the settings menu. You still get your locked down device by default, and much like blind people, people who care about…

Isn’t one of the points Epic is suing Google for because Google has a ton of warnings when side loading? I’m curious if there is a middle ground where grandma is protected but developers don’t feel they are described as potential malware.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#779
post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a developer, a huge reason I don’t mind walled gardens is the massive reduction in piracy. I’m glad people want to download & pirate the apps I poured blood, sweat, and tears into... but I’m not down with theft. Each dollar I earn represents the time I’ve spent away from friends & family. I’ve worked on games that have been copied outright. All assets and artwork, but a new name and “publisher” being sold elsewher…

All games on computer are piratable. On mobile they are not as easy to pirate as you noticed. Do you think the gaming environment is better on mobile? Are dev better paid on mobile? From what I have seen I could answer no to both, and would even say the walled garden is really really not helping indie devs break through on mobile. I see actually many ways in which devs are impacted : - discovery is basically null, bo…

Are devs better paid on Xbox than PC?

That's a closer analogy.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please don't give me root access to my iPhone, I do not care about it, I have no need for it, and I do not want it Then don't turn on root mode? Nobody will force you to do anything, if I am given the option of easilu turning on root mode, and you can simply choose to not turn that on.

Once root mode is an option it will be exploited. The weakest link in software systems is often a human.

You're not wrong. I also understand the viewpoint stemming from that truth that having the option is not worth the extra features. I still think the trade off is worth it.

Just like while we have people tricked into buying apple gift cards for scammers we still don't decide to ban those cards because they do offer utility.

Post reply on HN